Restoring My Beliefs

[FoolKiller]

I have no wish to offend or upset anyone, (although I probably will, sorry).

You are in the Opinions Forum, it is bound to happen.

Does this make me a bad person?

No.

Will I burn in hell for this?

I'm not the judge. I wish I knew the answer to that because I know quite a few "ethical atheists" as you say.

What I do take exception to is people telling me that because I don't share their beliefs that I am evil.

Did someone here say that?



Well, after reading this and many other posts I have decided that Swift and I must go to the only two churches that don't go around damning people. I mean, I know there are those like that who say if you don't attend their church then you are going to Hell. That has always been the minority in my experience. They offend me too because they have a message of hate and not the message of love preached by Jesus.

Unfortunately as is almost always the case, the squeaky wheel gets the attention and these people are seen as being representative of an incredibly large group that wishes to have no connection with them.

 

[Super T]

Unfortunately as is almost always the case, the squeaky wheel gets the attention and these people are seen as being representative of an incredibly large group that wishes to have no connection with them.

Makes a nice change to bump into someone who doesn't take offence to my non-belief. Good luck to you and I hope you find what you are looking for.

 

[Touring Mars]

In fifty years or so, Darwin's evolution will be in textbooks next to the ancient beliefs that the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.

Wrong... on the contrary, Darwinian evolution, the theory of common descent, and the process of natural selection remain the cornerstones of modern biology. 100 years of evidence from all facets of science have done nothing but strengthen the stance of Darwinian evolution, not weaken it. A common theme emerges when you examine the successful development of modern scientific discoveries - the refinement of theories, bolstered by the discovery of supporting physical evidence, allows us to hone in on the fundamental truths in nature. The way we explain, understand or even misunderstand these fundamental scientific truths is really neither here nor there. The property that we are studying does not change, just our understanding of it. Evolution happens, period. Proof of this is beyond doubt, esp. given the vast quantities of supporting evidence from genetic data now at our disposal. How we've come to understand the processes by which evolution works doesn't alter the fact that is does work, just as gravity always worked before Newton put pen to paper in order to describe his 'discovery' to the rest of us.

Also bear in mind that Darwin made his discoveries by simple observation of the appearance of relatedness among species, and postulated the mechanism (natural selection) by which heredity and speciation happens. Darwin did not have the benefit of modern genetics, (or even the concept of the gene) when he wrote 'The Origin Of Species', but with the advent of modern biology and our ability to examine the genomes of all living things, Darwinian evolution is now stronger than ever and will remain so.

 

[Danoff]

Good post TM. I'd like to add that in the history of science, the theories that ended up getting overturned didn't die immediately. Notions that the Earth was the center of the universe were modified to account for observations many times before they died. Theories that don't work out in the long run tend to be the ones we have to make exceptions for over and over until they just die altogether.

That's going on with the Big Bang right now, though I'm no Astrophysicist so I don't totally understand the details, it is my understanding that the Big Bang has introduced quite a few problems with our notion of physics right now, and that many exceptions have been made to jam what amounts to a square peg into a round hole. This indicates that the Big Bang is probably a theory that won't survive forever.

Evolution, on the otherhand, hasn't needed to be modified one bit. As TM said, everything points to evolution (except the bible). It isn't exhibiting any of the telltale signs of a theory in the throws of death.

 

[Swift]

That's going on with the Big Bang right now, though I'm no Astrophysicist so I don't totally understand the details, it is my understanding that the Big Bang has introduced quite a few problems with our notion of physics right now, and that many exceptions have been made to jam what amounts to a square peg into a round hole. This indicates that the Big Bang is probably a theory that won't survive forever.

And this is the issue I have with people constantly pushing science as the truth when it can change at any point. I'm not saying that science is always wrong. Just that since exceptions can be made to "fit the bill" so to speak.

Again, I'm not badmouthing all science and all discoveries. Just that the same thing you just said about science has been said about the bible to prove that it's wrong.

 

[Danoff]

And this is the issue I have with people constantly pushing science as the truth when it can change at any point. I'm not saying that science is always wrong. Just that since exceptions can be made to "fit the bill" so to speak.

Again, I'm not badmouthing all science and all discoveries. Just that the same thing you just said about science has been said about the bible to prove that it's wrong.

Yea that's a big sticking point with lots of religious folks. They don't like that science adapts to new discoveries, and the idea that they might not have the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But that's reality. Reality is that there's a lot we don't know. If you want to believe you know everything, that's fine for you - but that doesn't make it true.

As for disproving the Bible, I'd say that their first mistake was to try to disprove something mystical. Mysticism can't be disproven because mysticism can be invoked to explain the lack of proof. That's why it's better to require proof before you buy a theory. Because otherwise there's no way to differentiate the validity of your beliefs from any others.

 

[Touring Mars]

And this is the issue I have with people constantly pushing science as the truth when it can change at any point. I'm not saying that science is always wrong. Just that since exceptions can be made to "fit the bill" so to speak.

Again, I'm not badmouthing all science and all discoveries. Just that the same thing you just said about science has been said about the bible to prove that it's wrong.

That's a good point, and raises an important distinction to make from the outset. Science - or more specifically, scientific knowledge - should not be touted as 'absolute' truth, but merely as our understanding of trueisms pertaining to the natural world. Of course our understanding of these truths will change, but the truths themselves do not.

The fact is that science can only point towards the truth, but as evidence accrues, our pointers becomes more and more accurate over time. The problem (for me anyway) with the Bible is that it assumes 'absolute truth' from the outset - ironically, this position automatically means that any scrutiny of it, or of 'the facts' used to support this assumed absolute truth can only possibly lead to more uncertainty - pretty much the opposite of the 'scientific method'. This is why I think that many 'theories' and/or 'facts' based on the biblical texts are seldom subject to anywhere near the same level of objective scrutiny as even the most mundane (real) scientific theory - because such scrutiny can only do them harm. On the contrary, scientific facts and theories lend themselves, by definition, to scrutiny. And what if they fail when subjected to intense, evidentially based scrutiny? Simple, they're outta there... it's possibly the biggest irony of all that all scientific theories are subject to Darwin's original maxim - 'survival of the fittest'.

Now lets say for a second that there was another gospel found and it was authentic. It updated or modified some things in the bible but didn't go against the general principles. Does that make the current bible untrue?

Interesting question, and you only have to look at the reaction to the recently discovered 'Gospel of Judas' to answer it. The key point here is 'and it was authentic'... for as long as that remains contentious, it will never be accepted as 'biblical level' absolute truth. My question is this though - what makes it any more or less authentic than any other gospel? Atleast we know exactly where and when this was found (if not written) and exactly how it has been interpreted/translated - which is alot more than can be said for other, actual biblical texts...

 

[Swift]

Yea that's a big sticking point with lots of religious folks. They don't like that science adapts to new discoveries, and the idea that they might not have the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

You call it adapting to new discoveries(and it is). Now lets say for a second that there was another gospel found and it was authentic. It updated or modified some things in the bible but didn't go against the general principles. Does that make the current bible untrue?

But that's reality. Reality is that there's a lot we don't know. If you want to believe you know everything, that's fine for you - but that doesn't make it true.

I'm not even close to that. I don't know everything about my own car, nevermind existance.

As for disproving the Bible, I'd say that their first mistake was to try to disprove something mystical. Mysticism can't be disproven because mysticism can be invoked to explain the lack of proof. That's why it's better to require proof before you buy a theory. Because otherwise there's no way to differentiate the validity of your beliefs from any others.

I agree. That's why when I talk about the bible from a validity standpoint, I stay away from teh science defying acts of the old testament because people just can't seem to comprehend them. I try to stay mor ein the the new testament with Jesus doing things for indiviual people.

 

[Pako]

Yea that's a big sticking point with lots of religious folks. They don't like that science adapts to new discoveries, and the idea that they might not have the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But that's reality. Reality is that there's a lot we don't know. If you want to believe you know everything, that's fine for you - but that doesn't make it true.

As for disproving the Bible, I'd say that their first mistake was to try to disprove something mystical. Mysticism can't be disproven because mysticism can be invoked to explain the lack of proof. That's why it's better to require proof before you buy a theory. Because otherwise there's no way to differentiate the validity of your beliefs from any others.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it my pappy used to always say. If my faith was a hopeless path of lies and letdowns, I wouldn't have faith in it. It is through consistent benefits in my life that I choose to remain faithful....it works for me and millions of others so why wouldn't it work for you? To discount it just because science can't explain it is certainly a choice that someone can make. You can also choose to not except it because you don't understand it, that's also choice.

If you seek the truth in the word of God, it will be reveiled to you.

"And ye shall seek me, and find me when ye shall search for me with all your heart."
(Jeremiah 29:13)

"Let all those that seek Thee rejoice and be glad in Thee: let such as love Thy salvation say continually, Let God be magnified."
(Psalm 70:4)​

 

[Danoff]

It is through consistent benefits in my life that I choose to remain faithful....it works for me and millions of others so why wouldn't it work for you?

That a certain belief offers me "benefits" is not a sufficient reason for me to believe it. Otherwise I'd believe that I was going to get 10 bajillion-bazillion dollars tomorrow - that doesn't make it true.

 

[Niels]

We only have to find out, if God actually is scientificly possible or if it's not, basically.

So far it seemed like there was a battle between science and religion, but really we need to figure out a way to combine them. Religious people think God is a fact, to twist their words a bit, science just hasn't accepted it yet.

 

[Pako]

That a certain belief offers me "benefits" is not a sufficient reason for me to believe it. Otherwise I'd believe that I was going to get 10 bajillion-bazillion dollars tomorrow - that doesn't make it true.

Well, don't you know that can get "10 bajillion-bazillion dollars" tomorrow? You just have to gamble your life away. The big win is just around the corner. Not sure what benefits your talking about in that example.

 

[Danoff]

Well, don't you know that can get "10 bajillion-bazillion dollars" tomorrow? You just have to gamble your life away. The big win is just around the corner. Not sure what benefits your talking about in that example.

You said that you believe because it gives you benefits in life. I explained that if I believed everything that benefitted me, I'd believe that I was going to get money tomorrow - but that doesn't make it real.

I'm probably not being clear. In my example "10 bajillion-bazillion dollars" = heaven.

 

[Touring Mars]

You said that you believe because it gives you benefits in life. I explained that if I believed everything that benefitted me, I'd believe that I was going to get money tomorrow - but that doesn't make it real.

I'm probably not being clear. In my example "10 bajillion-bazillion dollars" = heaven.

I get what you mean, and yet I still play the lottery...

 

[Niels]

You said that you believe because it gives you benefits in life. I explained that if I believed everything that benefitted me, I'd believe that I was going to get money tomorrow - but that doesn't make it real.

Maybe you wouldn't get it that exact benefit, but get a different benefit in life: the knowledge that life is not about money?

Sounds simple huh? It's effective enough for some though...

 

[Pako]

You said that you believe because it gives you benefits in life. I explained that if I believed everything that benefitted me, I'd believe that I was going to get money tomorrow - but that doesn't make it real.

I'm probably not being clear. In my example "10 bajillion-bazillion dollars" = heaven.

I hear what you're saying. The benefits I am speaking of are attainable today. You don't have to wait to receive God's grace, you can have it right now, you don't have to die to receive it.

 

[Duke]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it my pappy used to always say. If my faith was a hopeless path of lies and letdowns, I wouldn't have faith in it. It is through consistent benefits in my life that I choose to remain faithful....it works for me and millions of others so why wouldn't it work for you?

It's perfectly possible for everyone to believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, from a purely functional standpoint. Or that it is pulled across the sky in Helios's flaming chariot. These are both possible explanations for how it appears in the east every morning and disappears in the west every evening. The important part is that it rises the next morning, correct?

Would this "works for me" attitude serve any beneficial purpose to mankind if we adopted it for every mystery of nature?

You can also choose to not except it because you don't understand it, that's also choice.

You can also choose to sign a contract without reading the fine print, but that doesn't mean the contract does not apply to you.

If you seek the truth in the word of God, it will be reveiled to you.

In other words, if you Believe, you will Believe. Please see my comment about signing a contract without reading it above.

 

[Pako]

[1] It's perfectly possible for everyone to believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, from a purely functional standpoint. Or that it is pulled across the sky in Helios's flaming chariot. These are both possible explanations for how it appears in the east every morning and disappears in the west every evening. The important part is that it rises the next morning, correct?

[2] Would this "works for me" attitude serve any beneficial purpose to mankind if we adopted it for every mystery of nature?

[3] You can also choose to sign a contract without reading the fine print, but that doesn't mean the contract does not apply to you.

[4] In other words, if you Believe, you will Believe. Please see my comment about signing a contract without reading it above.

[1] It is important to know that the sun will rise and fall daily, although it really isn't rising and falling, but yes...I would have to agree.

[2] Remember Mikey?

The point I was trying to make is, try it...you might like it. Or more to the point, I have experienced life changing benefits and have seen first hand the grace of God in my life and lives around me and before you discount faith in God because of it's mystic properties, look at the very real life examples that have benefited from having faith in God.

[3] Kind of lost me on that one. I do agree with what you are saying, but not sure what point you are trying to make. I would say that the Bible is full of fine print, and although you don't read it or believe it, it can still apply to you.

[4] Again, I agree with what you are saying but fail to see it's relevance in this case. If you seek truth and understanding in God you will find it as God promises. You don't have to be a 'believer' to seek truth, but once to find it you tend to believe.

 

[Danoff]

Pako, give me an example of a bad habbit you have. Something that you probably shouldn't do, but do anyway.

 

[Pako]

Pako, give me an example of a bad habbit you have. Something that you probably shouldn't do, but do anyway.

Sure, I'll entertain you. I used to chew tobacco and smoke cigs from the time I was about 12 years old. I also used a variety of drugs on a regular basis. I'm glad to say I no longer have these habits.

All my habits now are pretty healthy and wouldn't consider them bad. The worst is probably video games....although I could argue that it is a stress reliever and that I actually benefit from it.

 

[Danoff]

Sure, I'll entertain you. I used to chew tobacco and smoke cigs from the time I was about 12 years old. I also used a variety of drugs on a regular basis. I'm glad to say I no longer have these habits.

All my habits now are pretty healthy and wouldn't consider them bad. The worst is probably video games....although I could argue that it is a stress reliever and that I actually benefit from it.

Well you kinda played along. I was hoping for something you're currently doing. But let's pretend for a moment that you still chew tobacco.

Now, it would benefit you if you believed that a purple dragon with blue polka-dots would materialize and breath fire at you (keep in mind that's 6D6 damage) if you continued to chew tobacco.

If you believed that, and quit chewing, that's an example of a false belief that benefitted you. Do you see the point I'm making now about how getting a benefit from a belief doesn't validate or justify the belief?

Perhaps there's an IRA dragon out there that will burn you alive if you don't invest your full contribution in your IRA account every year... that belief would benefit everyone.

 

[James2097]

Now, it would benefit you if you believed that a purple dragon with blue polka-dots would materialize and breath fire at you (keep in mind that's 6D6 damage) if you continued to chew tobacco.

If you believed that, and quit chewing, that's an example of a false belief that benefitted you. Do you see the point I'm making now about how getting a benefit from a belief doesn't validate or justify the belief?

This is a great point, and very simply and elegantly explained. The blue polka dots are essential to my understanding of the idea, also. I don't usually like analogies, but it makes perfect sense here.

 

[Pako]

Nice. I especially like the D&D reference. However, in that example, the only benefit would be that I finally quit chewing tobacco for the fear of being burned alive. I could see the comparison if my faith were built on fear, but it is not. Instead it is built upon the redeeming grace of God and the ability to be forgiven of ALL my transgressions and to be given a new life with a pretty nice bonus at the end of this life. Some people experience a spiritual awakening if you will and others don't but reap the same benefits. Some people will experience mystical miracles and others wont. Some people will be persecuted for their belief and others wont, but the common benefit for everyone that believes in the "good news" is the forgiveness of ALL their sins and life everlasting. Christ was on this earth, he did die, and he did rise from the dead on the third day. If none of that happened, then yes...the entire Bible would be a farce and millions (not just a couple select few) would have to renounce their belief in God. I posted a link earlier to a book called "The Case for Faith" and would suggest it to any skeptic in the room. It gets pretty factual at times but in a good read anyways.

I'm trying really hard not to repeat many discussions we've had in the Evolution vs. Creation thread.

 

[Danoff]

Nice. I especially like the D&D reference. However, in that example, the only benefit would be that I finally quit chewing tobacco for the fear of being burned alive. I could see the comparison if my faith were built on fear, but it is not.

I fail to see the significance... why does it matter what the belief is based on? My point has nothing to do with that, only that a net benefit to you does not justify a particular belief.

(you do get a saving throw vs. breath weapons by the way)

 

[Pako]

I fail to see the significance... why does it matter what the belief is based on? My point has nothing to do with that, only that a net benefit to you does not justify a particular belief.

(you do get a saving throw vs. breath weapons by the way)

People believe garbage for a lot less. Just look at the advertising industry. Enough said.

(glad to know I get a saving throw vs. breath weapons... )

 

[Danoff]

People believe garbage for a lot less. Just look at the advertising industry. Enough said.

You're attacking your own reasoning.

 

[Pako]

You're attacking your own reasoning.

Huh, I don't see it that way..., however, I don't see my belief as garbage. Do you see my belief as garbage?

 

[Danoff]

You: I have faith in part because it gives me benefits in life.
Me: Benefits don't justify your beleifs.
You: "People believe garbage for a lot less."

You're proving my point - that benefits from beliefs don't validate them.

 

[Swift]

Hmm...this is very interesting. But I think Pako and myself are coming from a slighty different standpoint.

We have been touched by God, read the bible, seen the hand of God manifest in our lives directly. It's not like looking at a car commercial and being convinced that Daweoo is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I guess what I'm wondering is what you would consider "justified".

 

[Pako]

People believe in fictional benefits. "This cream will make you look like this 20 year old model". These benefits are not real, yet people buy into it thinking it is real. They are outright lies with the intent of making the company money that sells the product. I still don't see how this supports my claim of 'real' benefits of salvation with the only requirement being between you and God. There are NO ill gains or half truths about this. No one gets rich off of your personal relationship with God. Is faith abused by some people and groups? You bet, without a doubt.....some organized religions have abused until they are sick with ill gotten gains. There have been countries attacked in the name of religion, even Christianity. As long as we are human, we will continue to make mistakes. Don't judge what Christ can do for you based on these exceptions of people that have clearly distorted their belief system for their own gain and all in the name of God. Organized religion of the day hated Christ for many reasons, one of which is that Christ was preaching a doctrine that would take control away from the churches and synagogues. He was, for lack of a better word, a political radical of the day. What is this conspiracy of mind control or a means to collect money all in the name of God? This is not what Christ teaches so where does it come from? Why is Christ's teachings being associated with this mind set? There seems to be some real confusion here.

Sorry, I seem to have totally gotten off track here. Good questions still the same. A lot of questioned faith comes from the doubts that we have in our own minds like if God is so loving, why does He let good people die. Why do bad things happen to good people. Look at these churches, all they do is judge and want money, this must be a doctrine created by man...it's all made up.

I'll always have questions, that's part of faith. The journey in looking and asking for the answers is part of faith. At some point you come to a place of peace but you still have questions and in some cases doubts which is ok, you need to question those doubts and do your research. I would encourage it as it will only strengthen your faith.